Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Curved Screens vs Flat Screens

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Curved Screens vs Flat Screens (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Curved Screens vs Flat Screens

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-11-1999 01:47 PM

In the sixties phillips published a book called designing the cinema that ahd some interesting form ulas for theatre design including the pyscology of the angle of view and screen curvature
They recomended for theatres equiped with 70mm that the screen be curve on a ellipse so that the 1.33 area was flat with only a very slight curve at the edge of 1.66 with a bit more curve at the edge of 1.85 and then the greatest curve to the 70mm format
The grey hammertoned Isco lens sold by phillips were designed for that curve as were the phillips anamophs
The book is well worth reading if you can find an english edition

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 10-16-1999 08:33 PM

Ah Curved screens...another one of my specialites...

Curved screens are like any thing that requires skill, they should be done by people qualified to do them, not just anybody. Unfortunately, too many people do them badly and give them a bad name.

All of the complaints I read in this thread are true but correctable/minimized with proper design.

First, the designer should know just WHY they are putting in a curved screen....is it for focus, "wow"-factor, most uniform efficient light, technical...etc....these all have different design criteria.

Once the type of curve is decided upon (throw, shallow curve, deep curve)...then the the design process begins.

If one just takes a matte-white screen and curves it any old way...disaster is bound to creep in.

When one designs the screen...throw, projection angle, gain, seating area must all be factored in because they will affect the final result. I have yet to have curve screens in a plex that the audience preferred the flat screens in the same plex...they are often requested but aren't advertised. The most recent ones I designed were at the Kentland's Stadium 8...two screens were curved...80 lines/mm on ALL targets on RP-40 with 1.85:1 or Scope.

Also, for what its worth...FLAT screens are not distortion free either. Keystoning will still have the buildings leaning in on the edges and with short focal lengths, one can see the myth on the "FLAT FIELD" lenses...they pincushion.

Steve

| IP: Logged

Michael Brown
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1522
From: Bradford, England
Registered: May 2001

posted 07-06-2001 03:04 PM

Hi, I just brought this topic up to add my 2 cents worth anyway.

I have to say that I hate curved screens. Mostly because of the distortion and the fact that it makes the aspect ration appear less wide. There is a particular auditorium that I want to rant about that has a 1.85:1 aspect ratio that is presented to look almost square.

Untill a few weeks ago every film I had seen in there was in scope so you just had to suffer through the ads. I ended up watching the flat movie Evolution last weeks and it looked pretty awfull. Plus there was quite a lote of image overlapping onto the masking on the left.

I would also like opinions on a 70mm print of 2001 being shown on a hightly curved Cinerama screen. I think that there were originally cinerama prints of 2001 but the 70mmm print and cinerama screen didnt look too good. The problem was that there was a lot of distortion of angles in the image during many screnes in the movie. To be onist I would have prefered to have seen the print on a flat screen.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 07-06-2001 06:45 PM

There were very few rectifed 70mm prints made for deep curved screens. Most of the Ultra Panavision films had rectified prints, and Its a Mad mad mad World also did. To my knowledge there were no 70mm rectified prints of 2001.
Mark @ GTS

| IP: Logged

Darryl Spicer
Film God

Posts: 3250
From: Lexington, KY, USA
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 07-06-2001 08:07 PM

I may be wrong about this, but wasn't 2001 shot to utilize the super panavision format. A step down from Ultra panavision. Didn't both the super and ultra panavision 70 prints require some degree of an anamorphic squeeze to them in order to make the picture wider. Ultra having a bit more sqeeze than the super.

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99

posted 07-06-2001 08:39 PM

Super Panavision was the same as ToddAo with no squeeze
UltraPanavision/MGM-Camera65 had a squeeze factor

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 07-06-2001 09:19 PM

The rectification that I am speaking about is when they squeezed only the outer sides of the image. This way the image would stretch back to approxamately normal on a deep dish screen. This can be seen on the missing scenes on the (analog) laser disc of I.M.M.M.M.W.

As far as screens go I could go either way. I'll side with Steve G. though on this one that if the deep dish is done right it can look very good. They definately make a film more involving than when shown on a flat screen. Pearl Harbour looked quite good at the Villa which has a near 0 projection angle. Even on the 90 plus foot screen, sharpness was very acceptable as well. Just another tribute to the Phillips DP-70 which they still are using there.
Personally I couldn't imagine either the Villa or Uptown installing a flat screen in place of the curved.
Mark @ GTS

| IP: Logged

John Walsh
Film God

Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 07-06-2001 11:36 PM

I'd agree that a curved screen done right looks good. But, it seems that you can't get it done right. The theory is no problem- the problem is things like getting the extra money and getting architects to understand how it should be done (they usually think you are ruining their 'perfect' auditourium design somehow.)

Although, I saw an Omnimax film (Amazon?) at the Hubert H. Humphrey Omnimax Theater in Minneapolis. Sat at the top left of the theater. I was getting a headache from the distortion.

So, I think I would stick with a flat screen, or just a slight curve (2X radius.)

| IP: Logged

Jonathan Haglund
Film Handler

Posts: 81
From: Irvine, CA, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 07-07-2001 05:31 AM

One of our theatres has all curved screens with isco-optic lenses to match. Some of the best images I have ever seen. Makes flat screens look downright boring. Though yes, it does take away some of the stunning effect of scope images since the screen doesn't go wall to wall, but I'm not complaining since it just looks so darn good.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 07-07-2001 08:07 AM

You need to differentiate between a "deep curved" screen as was used for Cinerama or D-150, and a mildly curved screen designed to optimize light distribution with a gain surface (per SMPTE Recommended Practice RP98). Deep curved screens were intended to envelop the audience with the picture, but had issues like the limited "sweet spot" seating, geometric distortion, and cross-reflections. Mildly curved screens are designed to efficiently reflect light back to the audience, and minimize the "hot spots" and non-uniformity that can occur when installing high gain screens "flat".

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

| IP: Logged

Mitchell Cope
Master Film Handler

Posts: 256
From: Overland Park, KS, United States
Registered: Jun 99

posted 07-08-2001 08:28 PM

I saw over the weekend a review that the New York Times did on the film "Oklahoma!" when it premiered at the Rivoli in New York City. The review was highly critical of the curved screen used then for Todd-AO and how patrons sitting to the left and right would not be able to enjoy the presentation as those seated in the center. (The review also noted scratches in the presentation and color fluctuation, but I guess that could be another topic.) My point would be, we look back at these things and think these revolutionary (evolutionary?) things like curved screens were well received, when in fact they were not. Widescreen cinematography has certainly survived, but all the components of those initial processes may not have been the best and as well accepted as we think we remember.

Within the last two years, I've seen both "Ben-Hur" and "West Side Story" on a deeply curved screen here in the Kansas City area. In both cases, I think the curved screen took away from the presentation rather than add to it. Maybe it just worked better with Cinerama.

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 07-08-2001 08:34 PM

Within the last year and a half, I've seen two 35mm prints of Ben Hur. One was an IB Tech 4-track mag print shown on a flat screen; the other was a relatively recently struck Eastman print shown on a deep-curve screen. I thought that the curved-screen added significantly to the presentation, and I would have loved to have seen the IB print shown on the curved screen.

My own feeling is that most scope films look best on deep-curve or shallow-curve (as opposed to flat) screens, but I do think it depends on the film, and I also can accept that others would feel differently.

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99

posted 07-08-2001 09:27 PM

Amazon was not an OmniMax film but and Imax film designed for projection on the curved IMAX screens not a dome
The only 2 OmniFilms I know of are ATMOS and A FREEDOM TO MOVE

| IP: Logged

Thomas Hauerslev
Master Film Handler

Posts: 451
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Registered: Aug 2000

posted 07-09-2001 02:31 AM

More about rectification here

And Dimension 150 here

And finally about Todd-AO distortion printing process here

PS: At home I have made a two feet (2 ft) model of a curved screen (same width as our 25 inch TV). When projecting 70mm films on it, the illusion of being in a large theatre is stunning (provided you sit close enough to it). The curve seems to "suit" the images and they appear more spectacular. Can it be like women? Some find curves more attracting - I certainly do. Flat (screens) are boring.

------------------
Cheers, Thomas
..in70mm - The 70mm Newsletter
www.in70mm.com www.dp70.com www.70mm.dk www.hauerslev.com http://hjem.get2net.dk/in70mm

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 07-09-2001 10:27 AM

I was fortunate enough to see "How the West Was Won" and "Seven Wonders of the World" projected in original 3-strip Cinerama on a deeply curved strip screen at the New Neon Theatre in Dayton Ohio in April 2000 (John Harvey's wonderful work). I got there early and sat in the "sweet spot". The "wrap around" image added much to the presentation. But if you were unlucky enough to arrive late and get a "bad" seat, there was considerable distortion. John Harvey's 3-projector setup at the New Neon was fairly close to on-axis with the screen. But the high projection angles in some theatres that had significant keystone distortion could look really bad on a deep curved screen, unless the prints were "rectified" (the "Oklahoma" rectified prints).

Gain screens curved for proper light distribution (per SMPTE RP95) have a radius of curvature that rarely is less than 75% of the throw, and so have fewer issues than deep-curve screens.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.